CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF FATIMA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

आदेश / ORDER

PER BENCH:

These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the same order dated 24.10.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2024-25.

“ It may kindly be noted that technically the appeal against the said Appellate Order under Section 250 of the Act dated 24.10.2025 was, required to be filed on or before 24.12.2025 whereas the same is now being filed on 03.02.2026. Thus, there is a delay of 43 days in filing the above appeal. The delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT has occurred due to an inadvertent omission of non-checking of e-mail of the Trust where the order passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sent. The said order was received in the mail on 24.10.2025 itself. However, due to inadvertence/oversight, the concerned person in the office of the Trust did not notice such email and failed to bring the same to the notice of the Sole Trustee or to inform the Sole Trustee about such Order. The same was noticed by the Sole Trustee during the third week of January, 2026 while browsing the email account to check some other email. Accordingly, he forwarded the same to M/s. Chhotalal H. Shah & Co, the chartered accountants looking after the audit and tax matters of the Trust for necessary action. 5. It is respectfully submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional and was caused by the circumstances narrated above. The Appellant, accordingly, prays that a lenient view may kindly be taken in the matter and the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and the appeal may kindly be heard on merits of the case. It is submitted that the Appellant has a very good case on merit and the huge demand raised on processing of the Return of Income under Section 143(1) of the Act is unwarranted and unjustified.”

“5. We have heard the parties and perused the relevant material available on record. The Assessee controverted the findings of the authorities below, whereas the Ld. DR supported the orders passed by authorities below. Though, the Assessee filed Form No.10B along with return of income on dated 29.11.2023 which was filed within the due date, as prescribed and extended. 6. However, the Assessee was supposed to file the Audit Report in Form- 10B on or before 31.10.2023, as per Circular No.16/2023 dated 18.09.2023 by which the date for filing Form -10B was extended. Thus, there was a delay of 29 days in filing Form - 10B which ultimately resulted into not allowing the exemption claimed u/s 11 and 10 of the Act, by the authorities below. 7. We observe that the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Nasik ST. Xavier's Society vs. Central Processing Centre, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru, (ITA No.1364/M/2025 decided on 29.08.2025) has also dealt with an identical issue, wherein there was a delay in filing to Form-10B and the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal by considering various judgments of the Hon'ble High Courts and the fact that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT(Exemptions) vs. Laxminarayandev Shikshan Seva Kendra (2024) 167 taxmann.com 548 (Gujarat) [10.09.2024] also distinguished the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Wipro Limited (supra) as relied on by the Ld. Commissioner, in approving the decision of the CPC, rejecting the deduction claimed by the Assessee u/s. 11 of the Act. 8. For brevity and ready reference, the conclusion drawn by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, is reproduced herein below:- “6. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the Assessee has not filed Form 10B before one month of due date of submitting the income tax return u/s 139(1) of the Act, as specified in section 44AB of the Act. However, it is a fact that the Assessee had duly furnished Form No.10B online on dated 30.11.2023 before filing of its return of income for which the last date was extended up to 30.11.2023 and/or the Form 10B has been made available before the processing of the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act on dated 19.11.2024. 7. We observe that in the case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust vs. ITO (Exemption) (2021) 125 taxmann.com 75 (Guj.) the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has also dealt with the identical issue qua filing of Form 10B belatedly, however, in that case the Assessee approached the Appropriate Authority u/s 119(2b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing of Form 10B. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court by considering the issue, held as under: “That in the cases of delay in filing form 10B the approach of the authorities ought to be equitious, balancing and judicious. Further, availing of exemption should not be denied merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned. This Court in CIT Vs. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 325 (Guj) has also held that provision regarding furnishing of audit report with the return has to be treated as a procedural proviso. It is directory in nature and its substantial compliance would suffice Benefit of exemption should not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the same and it is permissible for the Assessee to produce the audit report at a later stage either before the Income Tax Officer or before the appellate authority by assigning sufficient cause" 8. We further observe that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Laxminarayandev Shikshan Seva Kendra (2024) 167 taxmann.com 548 (Guj.) (10.09.2024) has also dealt with the issue "wherein the Form 10B was filed during the course of appellate proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the benefit of section 11 of the Act to the Assessee" and the Tribunal upheld the said decision of the Ld. Commissioner. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court by taking cognizance of the fact and the decision of the Sarvodaya Charitable Trust case (supra) approved the decision of the Tribunal in following the judgment of the Social Securities Scheme of GICEA Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption), Ahmedabad dated 21.12.2022 in Special Civil Application No. 17612 of 2022, wherein it has been held as under: “"That though filing of audit report is mandatory in nature and substantial compliance is required to be made, however, furnishing of audit report along with return filed is to be treated as a procedural requirement" 9. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court also distinguished the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Wipro Ltd. (2022) 446 ITR (1)(SC), which has been relied on by the Ld. Commissioner in approving the decision of the CPC, while rejecting the deduction claimed by the Assessee u/s 11 of the Act. 10. We further observe that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mirae Audit Foundation Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Mumbai & Ors. has also taken into consideration the Judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust case (supra) and ultimately condoned the delay of 246 days in filing of Form 108 by holding as under: “That if delay is not condoned, there will be genuine hardship to the petitioner, in as much as the petitioner would be denied the exemption otherwise claimed under the provisions of section 11 of the Act and which is substantial amount". 11. Thus, on the aforesaid analyzations, we direct the AO to consider Form no.10B filed by the Assessee, as valid and verify the facts and determine on merit, the deduction/exemption claimed by the Assessee. 9. ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………… 10……………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………….. 11. Thus on the aforesaid, analyzations and respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 29 days in filing of Form 10B, hence, the orders passed by the authorities below are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to consider Form 10B filed by the Assessee, as valid and verify the facts and determine on merit, the deduction/exemption claimed by the Assessee.”

“9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we agree with the contentions of the Petitioner. We find that admittedly, there was only a 31 day delay in filing Form No. 10B. In the present case, when one considers that Respondent No.1 never doubted the factual situation put forth by the Petitioner to explain the delay, Respondent No.1 ought to have condoned the delay. We find that if this delay is not condoned, there will be genuine hardship to the Petitioner, inasmuch as, the Petitioner would be denied the exemption otherwise claimed under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act and which is a substantial amount. 10. We are of the view that Respondent No.1 ought to have taken a justice oriented approach rather than a pedantic one, and condoned the delay. We also find that in similar facts, this Court in the case of Mirae Asset Foundation (supra), Sau. Dwarkabai tai Karwa Charitable Trust (supra) and Kotak Family Foundation (supra) has taken a similar view and condoned the delay. Even the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sarvodaya Charitable Trust (supra) took the view that in cases like the present one (delay in filing Form No. 10B), the approach of the authorities ought to be equitious, balancing and judicious and availing of exemption should not be denied merely on the bar of limitation. This is more so, when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone the delay on the authorities concerned. The relevant portion of this decision reads thus:- 31. Having given our due consideration to all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the approach in the cases of the present type should be equitious, balancing and judicious. Technically, strictly and liberally speaking, the respondent no. 2 might be justified in denying the exemption under section 12 of the Act by rejecting such condonation application, but an assessee, a public charitable trust past 30 years who substantially satisfies the condonation for availing such exemption, should not be denied the same merely on the bar of limitation especially when the legislature has conferred wide discretionary powers to condone such delay on the authorities concerned. 32. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Gujarat Oil and Allied Industries Ltd. [1993] 201 ITR 325 (Guj.), wherein it is held that the provision regarding furnishing of audit report with the return has to be treated as a procedural proviso. It is directory in nature and its substantial compliance would suffice. In that case, the assessee had not produced the audit report along with the return of income but produced the same before the completion of the assessment. This Court took the view that the benefit of exemption should not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the same and it is permissible for the assessee to produce the audit report at a later stage either before the Income Tax Officer or before the appellate authority by assigning sufficient cause." 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 6th February 2025 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

(Tarun Kushwaha) Sr. Private Secretary Copy to: CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF FATIMA, 1, SEWRI, 1 MUMBAI-400015, MAHARASHTRA INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD 1(2), MUMBAI, 2 6TH FLOOR MTNL TE BUILDING, PEDDER ROAD,, MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., MUMBAI